Pages

Saturday, February 02, 2013

Extraordinary E.T.s require extraordinary evidence

Atheists
raise three objections to the argument from religious experience:

1. The Logical Gap
Objection: We have to distinguish the experience and the subjective
conviction it produces from the objectivity (or veridicality) of the
experience, for example, a very “real” hallucination or dream is a live
possibility. The critics, such as Antony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre,20
admit that religious experiences often produce subjective certitude in the
subjects. However, it does not follow that the experience is objectively
certain. In other words, there is a logical gap between the psychological data
and the ontological claim of the religious experiences. To bridge the gap,
we need independent certification of the religious belief. For example, Flew
challenges the defenders of religious experiences to answer this basic
question: How and when would we be justified in making inferences from the
facts of the occurrence of religious experience, considered as a purely
psychological phenomenon, to conclusions about the supposed objective religious
truths?21

2. The Theory-Ladenness
Objection: The religious experiences are heavily (or even entirely) shaped
by the conceptual framework of the experients. Hence they are not useful as
evidence for ontological claims.22

3. The Privacy
Objection: According to Rem Edwards, “the foremost accusation leveled at
the mystics is that mystical experiences are private, like hallucinations,
illusions, and dreams, and that like these ‘nonveridical’ experiences,
religious experience is really of no noetic significance at all.”23

Carl Sagan was famous for his
deceptively simple adage that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.” However, Sagan was also deeply invested in the quest for E.T.s. One
reflection of that quest was his promotion of S.E.T.I.

But he also wrote a novel which
was later turned into a movie: Contact. Here’s a summary of the novel’s
climactic scene:

The Machine is activated, and
the five of them are shot into a wormhole. They are shot in a kind of cosmic
mass transit system, viewing all sorts of star systems (one of which is Vega)
and end near the center of the galaxy, where a large docking station awaits.

The five envoys to the galaxy
find themselves on what appears to be an Earth beach. While the others explore,
Ellie stays behind on the beach. Waiting for a welcome from the extraterrestrials,
she instead receives a welcome from someone in her childhood: her father,
Theodore. Only it is not her father, but one of the intelligent beings who is
hoping to make Ellie at ease. Ellie asks as many questions of the alien as she
can, and discovers that there is a long-lost species who has created the
tunnels she and her companions traveled through, as well as the strong
possibility of a Creator of the universe. Ellie's father suggests that she look
at the number pi for a signature.

When the five ambassadors to
space return, they are told that they went nowhere and were only out of contact
for about twenty seconds. They claim that they have been gone for about
eighteen hours, but they have no evidence, as Ellie's camera has recorded only
silence. Ellie is accused first of delusions, but later of helping to
perpetrate a hoax. She is unable to prove her story, and thus many people are
unconvinced. However, there are still many who believe her, including Palmer
Joss. There is one bit of evidence to back Eleanor's story up: her camera may
have only recorded static, but it recorded eighteen hours of static, not twenty
seconds.

What’s striking about this is
how Ellie’s first contact parallels the argument from religious experience. It
falls prey to the same secular objections.

1. The Logical Gap
Objection: We must distinguish the ostensible experience and the
subjective conviction it produces from the objectivity (or veridicality) of the
experience, for example, a very “real” hallucination or dream is a live
possibility. Ellie’s experience produced subjective certitude in the
reality of first contact. However, it does not follow that the experience is
objectively certain. In other words, there is a logical gap between the
psychological data and the ontological claim of first contact. To bridge
the gap, we need independent confirmation of the E.T. belief. Unfortunately for
her, Ellie’s camera didn’t record the alleged encounter. It only recorded
static. Moreover, by objective metrics, she was only incommunicado for 20
seconds–far shorter than the duration of the alleged encounter. How would Ellie
be justified in making inferences from the facts of the occurrence of E.T
experience, considered as a purely psychological phenomenon, to conclusions
about the supposed objective existence of E.T.s? Much less how would second
parties be justified in drawing that inference?

2. The Theory-Ladenness
Objection: The ostensible first contact experience was entirely shaped by
the conceptual framework of the alleged alien: an earthly beach, Ellie’s
father. Hence this isn’t useful as evidence for ontological claims about E.T.s.

3. The Privacy
Objection: Since Ellie’s camera only recorded static, all we have to go by
is her private recollection of the ostensible encounter. But that makes it indistinguishable
from other inveridical experiences, like hallucinations, illusions, and dreams.
Hence her first contact experience is really of no noetic significance at all.

Although
the example is fictitious, this is Sagan’s own example. Does Sagan think the
character of Ellie was justified in believing that she made first contact with
real E.T.s? Does Sagan think readers of his novel or viewers of the cinematic
adaptation should conclude that Ellie was justified in her belief? Is the
narrative viewpoint of his novel consonant with his rules of evidence in
assessing religious claims?

12 comments:

If Ellie had no evidence outside her own mind, and if she had nothing to show other people, then she could not have been completely convinced her experience was real. I think Sagan would have agreed with this point.

Maybe if she could repeat her experience, that would constitute evidence within herself. But if it's just a one-time thing with no effect on your present material surroundings, then it's indistinguishable from an illusion.

Except that the movie presents her as a sympathetic figure and a brave, lonely martyr for the cause of science. In addition there was Sagan's passion for exobiology. So the audience is expected to identify with Ellie. Take her side.

I just have a strong suspicion that you suffer from precisely the same inconsistency he does. You accept many things in Christianity, and in fact Christianity itself because of the experience of the Christian community. But you are selective. You don't accept most of the miracles and experiences of the Christian community throughout history. Mostly you just accept what happened in the 1st century, and then debunk the rest.

So I guess the point is, if you debunk Sagan with an argument that debunks yourself, did you win?

You then impute to me a position I don't take. Indeed, my public, stated position is contrary to your fact-free imputation. "Strong suspicions" are a sorry substitute for knowing what you're talking about.

Likewise, what makes you "suspect" that I accept Christianity because of the experience of the Christian community? What does that even mean?

So you do accept the veracity of the long history of miracle working icons. Good to know for future reference.

Christianity is entirely founded on the experience of the Christian community. The apostles experienced stuff. They wrote it down. The community experienced more stuff. They wrote it down. This is the epistemological foundation that Ellie objects to, but you support, right?

"So you do accept the veracity of the long history of miracle working icons. Good to know for future reference."

Needless to say, your selection is arbitrary. I can credit miracles in church history without ascribing miracles to icons.

"Christianity is entirely founded on the experience of the Christian community."

Not according to Paul:

"1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead...11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:1,11-12).

"The apostles experienced stuff. They wrote it down."

A solid basis for sola scriptura.

"The community experienced more stuff. They wrote it down."

Evangelicals also experience "stuff."

"This is the epistemological foundation that Ellie objects to, but you support, right?"

We were discussing Sagan's view of Ellie, not Ellie's view of the church.

Oh yes? I'd like to see your argument against miracle working icons that couldn't also be deployed against Christianity itself. In other words, I'd like the spectacle of you immersing yourself in arbitrariness and inconsistency the way you apparently accuse Sagan of. I mean, that is the crux of your complaint, right? Sagan supported one set of experiences but denied the wisdom in accepting a different set. Thus your accusation of inconsistency.

"Not according to Paul"

I take it this "revelation" he received was his experience of Jesus Christ.

"Oh yes? I'd like to see your argument against miracle working icons that couldn't also be deployed against Christianity itself."

Since you haven't presented any argument to show how the two are necessarily linked, it's hardly incumbent on me to present a counterargument to disprove your nonexistent argument.

"In other words, I'd like the spectacle of you immersing yourself in arbitrariness and inconsistency the way you apparently accuse Sagan of. I mean, that is the crux of your complaint, right? Sagan supported one set of experiences but denied the wisdom in accepting a different set. Thus your accusation of inconsistency."

I'm not assessing Sagan by my own standards. Rather, I'm assessing Sagan on his own terms. You need to learn elementary distinctions.

"I take it this 'revelation' he received was his experience of Jesus Christ."

His gospel wasn't founded on the experience of the Christian community, but by direct divine revelation.